[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
Nick Piggin wrote:

> Steven Pratt wrote:
>> Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> Steven Pratt <> wrote:
>>>> would like to offer up an alternative simplified design which will
>>>> not only make the code easier to maintain,
>>> We won't know that until all functionality is in place.
>> Ok, but both you and Nick indicated that the queue congestion isn't
>> needed,
> I would have thought that always doing the readahead would provide a
> more graceful degradation, assuming the readahead algorithm is fairly
> accurate, and copes with things like readahead thrashing (which we
> hope is the case).

Yes, that is exactly my thought. I think this is what the new code does.

>>> I do think we should skip the I/O for POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED against a
>>> congested queue. I can't immediately think of a good reason for
>>> skipping
>>> the I/O for normal readahead.
> I don't see why you should skip the readahead for FADVISE_WILLNEED
> either. Presumably if someone needs this, they really need it. We
> should aim for optimal behaviour when the apis are being used
> correctly...

Ok, great, since this is what it does.

Thanks, Steve

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.123 / U:48.412 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site